- Video Games
All-Time Record Revenue and Earnings iPhone Sales Grow 142 Percent; iPad Sales Grow 183 Percent;
CUPERTINO, California—July 19, 2011—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2011 third quarter ended June 25, 2011. The Company posted record quarterly revenue of $28.57 billion and record quarterly net profit of $7.31 billion, or $7.79 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $15.70 billion and net quarterly profit of $3.25 billion, or $3.51 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 41.7 percent compared to 39.1 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 62 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
The Company sold 20.34 million iPhones in the quarter, representing 142 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 9.25 million iPads during the quarter, a 183 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 3.95 million Macs during the quarter, a 14 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 7.54 million iPods, a 20 percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter.
“We’re thrilled to deliver our best quarter ever, with revenue up 82 percent and profits up 125 percent,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Right now, we’re very focused and excited about bringing iOS 5 and iCloud to our users this fall.”
“We are extremely pleased with our performance which drove quarterly cash flow from operations of $11.1 billion, an increase of 131 percent year-over-year,” said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO. “Looking ahead to the fourth fiscal quarter of 2011, we expect revenue of about $25 billion and we expect diluted earnings per share of about $5.50.”
Apple will provide live streaming of its Q3 2011 financial results conference call beginning at 2:00 p.m. PDT on July 19, 2011 at www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq311. This webcast will also be available for replay for approximately two weeks thereafter.
This press release contains forward-looking statements including without limitation those about the Company’s estimated revenue and earnings per share. These statements involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ. Risks and uncertainties include without limitation the effect of competitive and economic factors, and the Company’s reaction to those factors, on consumer and business buying decisions with respect to the Company’s products; continued competitive pressures in the marketplace; the ability of the Company to deliver to the marketplace and stimulate customer demand for new programs, products, and technological innovations on a timely basis; the effect that product introductions and transitions, changes in product pricing or mix, and/or increases in component costs could have on the Company’s gross margin; the inventory risk associated with the Company’s need to order or commit to order product components in advance of customer orders; the continued availability on acceptable terms, or at all, of certain components and services essential to the Company’s business currently obtained by the Company from sole or limited sources; the effect that the Company’s dependency on manufacturing and logistics services provided by third parties may have on the quality, quantity or cost of products manufactured or services rendered; risks associated with the Company’s international operations; the Company’s reliance on third-party intellectual property and digital content; the potential impact of a finding that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others; the Company’s dependency on the performance of distributors, carriers and other resellers of the Company’s products; the effect that product and service quality problems could have on the Company’s sales and operating profits; the continued service and availability of key executives and employees; war, terrorism, public health issues, natural disasters, and other circumstances that could disrupt supply, delivery, or demand of products; and unfavorable results of other legal proceedings. More information on potential factors that could affect the Company’s financial results is included from time to time in the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections of the Company’s public reports filed with the SEC, including the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2010, its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended December 25, 2010 and March 26, 2011, and its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 25, 2011 to be filed with the SEC. The Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements or information, which speak as of their respective dates.
Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced iPad 2 which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices.
NEW YORK — Now playing: Movies at Walmart.com.
The world’s largest retailer on Tuesday started streaming many movies the same day they come out on DVD, in a second bid for a share of popular movie rental and streaming website Netflix Inc.’s business and just two weeks after Netflix announced new price increases.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. bought video-streaming service Vudu.com 18 months ago and now offers 20,000 titles that can be viewed on almost any device with Internet access, from computers to televisions to Sony’s PlayStation3 and other Blu-Ray disc players.
Movies are available at Walmart.com to rent for $1 to $5.99 or to purchase for $4.99 and up. Wal-Mart is not offering subscriptions, making its service more similar to Apple Inc.’s iTunes, which charges $3.99 to rent newly released movies and $14.99 to buy a movie.
In addition to Netflix, another competitor streaming movies and TV shows by subscription is Hulu.com, which now offers a premium service for $7.99 a month with more back-season shows and more movies. Without a subscription, Hulu viewers can watch shows and movies free in exchange for watching advertising.
The movie offering fits with the Wal-Mart website’s strategy of offering a “seamless continuous shopping service,” said Steve Nave, senior vice president and general manager of Walmart.com.
Wal-Mart’s announcement comes on the heels of Netflix saying it will raise rates and charge separately for streaming and rental DVDs. Its second price hike in eight months, Netflix’s planned increases could amount to 60 percent for existing customers, starting Sept. 1. New subscribers have to pay the new prices immediately.
Netflix plans to charge $16 a month for services that used to cost $10 a month when bundled together, for example. It’s still changing $8 a month for streaming, which it launched late last year. But instead of charging $2 more for a plan that includes one DVD at a time by mail, the company will charge $8 and up for DVD plans.
Customers have taken to social media sites Facebook and Twitter to vent their anger over Netflix’s increases, but executives said they anticipated the reaction. The company’s willingness to risk alienating subscribers signals it needs more revenue to cover rising costs.
As of March, Netflix had 22.8 million subscribers in the U.S. — about 34,000 more than the number of households subscribing to Comcast Corp.’s cable-TV service.
Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., has tested the movie-rental waters before. It previously offered a DVD-by-mail service that cost $12.97 per month for two titles and $17.36 per month for three titles. But it ceded that program to Netflix in February 2010, letting customers continue their subscriptions with Los Gatos, Calif.-based Netflix without a rate hike. Apple is based in Cupertino, Calif.
Apple’s name has been thrown into the ring as one of the many contenders looking to take Hulu and do something amazing with it. But with a list of suitors growing daily I wouldn’t bet on Apple being the winner at this stage.
Hulu is up for sale, that is now definitive. But we still don’t know who’ll be buying the U.S.-based online video service, or even which companies are in the running. We have a got fair idea, however, and it’s pretty much all the usual suspects.
Those usual suspects being Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google. Of those, the latter seems unlikely, even though Google would love to take Hulu under its wing, andMicrosoft has all but pulled out of the bidding process. Which leaves Yahoo!.
Yahoo! is thought to be keen on a deal and willing to pay $2 billion for the company if content was exclusive for five years. Terms which News Corp., Walt Disney, Comcast, and Providence Equity are unlikely to agree to.
But wait, what about Apple?
Apple Added To Mix
According to Bloomberg, Apple has joined the party and is in early talks. Apple doesn’t tend to spend fortunes on big, impressive acquisitions, but it’s cash-rich with $76.2 billion on its books. So why not?
The reasons for buying are pretty clear as well. Apple has been endeavoring to create an all-you-can-eat television subscription service for several years, and by buying Hulu would gain a ready-made alternative in Hulu Plus. That could easily be rolled into iTunes.
Not everyone is convinced though, with AllThingsD suggesting Apple is not a “serious contender.”
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Apple buy Hulu, but gone would be any free element because Steve Jobs and co. don’t believe in giving anything away for no money. That could force people to move to Hulu Plus though, and Apple could make a killing.
Google Plus is terrific. I don’t think it will ever be more than the Pepsi to Facebook’s Coke, alas, but it’s much slicker and better designed. It’s too bad that the service has sacrificed a pile of goodwill over the last week by repeatedly publicly shooting themselves in the foot.
First there was the brands mistake. Now it’s gotten much worse: it seems they’re deleting profiles wholesale because they suspect that Plus users may be using handles other than their legal names. On the Internet! The horror! Worse yet, the blandly passive-aggressive language Google’s engineers are using to explain/defend this is redolent of the usual brain-dead corporate-speak you see elsewhere:Our Stupid Policy Must Be Defended, Because It’s Policy, Don’t You Understand? Even Though It’s Stupid. Oh, Google. We all thought you were better than this. Please see the light and prove us right?
What’s the problem? The problem is that a whole lot of people have very good reason to want to be pseudonymous online. (Please note: pseudonymous, not anonymous; the latter is a separate issue.) Whistleblowers. Dissidents (eg recently world-famous Google employees). Stalker victims. People who habitually go by a name other than their legal name. And lots and lots of others, including, of course, our very own late lamented Techathew Cruncherin.
It’s not like this is a new issue. But Google Plus’s names policy seems to have been scribbled on a napkin at the last minute, rushed into production while still half-baked, and confused even further by their haphazard, scattershot approach. Famous-in-the-tech-world hardware hacker Limor Fried had her Plus account deleted for a name violation; this deletion was quickly revoked, presumably because Fried is famous in the tech world, but -
OK, granted, it’s a new service, growing faster than anyone expected, and a lot of iteration and making-it-up-as-you-go and stumbles were inevitable, and this is just one of them, and presumably cooler heads will eventually prevail. I would be happy to accept that—if the solution to the problem weren’t staring them in the face while shouting “Here I am! Look at me!“
The whole point of Google Plus, the “towering, brilliant difference” according to the NYT’s hyperbolic David Pogue, is that it allows you to organize the people you know into Circles and control which information goes to which group. That’s what it was built for, from the ground up. Meanwhile, when I go to my “Edit Profile” page on Google, what do I see? A little field called nickname. Here’s a crazy notion: suppose Google limited how often nicknames could be changed, and then let Plus users define which (if any) of their Circles see their real names, while others can only see their nicknames? Voila. Accountable identities and pseudonymity, all in one package: problem solved. You can thank me later, Google. After you reinstate all those accounts.